Literature DB >> 12375300

Proportional hazards models with frailties and random effects.

John O'Quigley1, Janez Stare.   

Abstract

We discuss some of the fundamental concepts underlying the development of frailty and random effects models in survival. One of these fundamental concepts was the idea of a frailty model where each subject has his or her own disposition to failure, their so-called frailty, additional to any effects we wish to quantify via regression. Although the concept of individual frailty can be of value when thinking about how data arise or when interpreting parameter estimates in the context of a fitted model, we argue that the concept is of limited practical value. Individual random effects (frailties), whenever detected, can be made to disappear by elementary model transformation. In consequence, unless we are to take some model form as unassailable, beyond challenge and carved in stone, and if we are to understand the term 'frailty' as referring to individual random effects, then frailty models have no value. Random effects models on the other hand, in which groups of individuals share some common effect, can be used to advantage. Even in this case however, if we are prepared to sacrifice some efficiency, we can avoid complex modelling by using the considerable power already provided by the stratified proportional hazards model. Stratified models and random effects models can both be seen to be particular cases of partially proportional hazards models, a view that gives further insight. The added structure of a random effects model, viewed as a stratified proportional hazards model with some added distributional constraints, will, for group sizes of five or more, provide no more than modest efficiency gains, even when the additional assumptions are exactly true. On the other hand, for moderate to large numbers of very small groups, of sizes two or three, the study of twins being a well known example, the efficiency gains of the random effects model can be far from negligible. For such applications, the case for using random effects models rather than the stratified model is strong. This is especially so in view of the good robustness properties of random effects models. Nonetheless, the simpler analysis, based upon the stratified model, remains valid, albeit making a less efficient use of resources. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12375300     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  23 in total

1.  Isoniazid Preventive Therapy in Contacts of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

Authors:  Chuan-Chin Huang; Mercedes C Becerra; Roger Calderon; Carmen Contreras; Jerome Galea; Louis Grandjean; Leonid Lecca; Rosa Yataco; Zibiao Zhang; Megan Murray
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  USING PROFILE LIKELIHOOD FOR SEMIPARAMETRIC MODEL SELECTION WITH APPLICATION TO PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MIXED MODELS.

Authors:  Ronghui Xu; Florin Vaida; David P Harrington
Journal:  Stat Sin       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.261

3.  On proportional hazards assumption under the random effects models.

Authors:  Ronghui Xu; Anthony Gamst
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2007-07-19       Impact factor: 1.588

4.  A Comparison of Seven Cox Regression-Based Models to Account for Heterogeneity Across Multiple HIV Treatment Cohorts in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Authors:  Mark J Giganti; Paula M Luz; Yanink Caro-Vega; Carina Cesar; Denis Padgett; Serena Koenig; Juan Echevarria; Catherine C McGowan; Bryan E Shepherd
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.205

5.  Detecting Change Using Standard Global Perimetric Indices in Glaucoma.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  Bayesian Variable Selection under the Proportional Hazards Mixed-effects Model.

Authors:  Kyeong Eun Lee; Yongku Kim; Ronghui Xu
Journal:  Comput Stat Data Anal       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.681

7.  Umbilical Cord Blood or HLA-Haploidentical Transplantation: Real-World Outcomes versus Randomized Trial Outcomes.

Authors:  Paul V O'Donnell; Claudio G Brunstein; Ephraim J Fuchs; Mei-Jie Zhang; Mariam Allbee-Johnson; Joseph H Antin; Eric S Leifer; Hany Elmariah; Michael R Grunwald; Hamza Hashmi; Mary M Horowitz; John M Magenau; Navneet Majhail; Filippo Milano; Lawrence E Morris; Andrew R Rezvani; Joseph P McGuirk; Richard J Jones; Mary Eapen
Journal:  Transplant Cell Ther       Date:  2021-11-11

8.  A semiparametric recurrent events model with time-varying coefficients.

Authors:  Zhangsheng Yu; Lei Liu; Dawn M Bravata; Linda S Williams; Robert S Tepper
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Consolidation strategies in ovarian cancer: observations for future clinical trials.

Authors:  Paul Sabbatini; David Spriggs; Carol Aghajanian; Martee Hensley; William Tew; Jason Konner; Kathryn Bell-McGuinn; Margrit Juretzka; Alexia Iasonos
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Long-term survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest: A matched cohort study.

Authors:  Paul Feingold; Michael J Mina; Rachel M Burke; Barry Hashimoto; Sara Gregg; Greg S Martin; Kenneth Leeper; Timothy Buchman
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 5.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.